A film that shows how gutless Britain has become

Roy

It could be the 'wakey wakey' call for a Britain that has the inclination to fall asleep whenever there is good reason for it to be wide awake ... and do something about it. The BBC is in free fall and nothing will wake it beyond a withdrawal of it's intravenous nutrient supply.

Richard

'Staying in London in July 2005, he found a marked difference in people’s attitudes toward him after the terror attacks. Despite his conventional Western garb and friendly demeanour, cab drivers were less likely to stop, passers-by eyed him warily. It says a lot about the spunky attitude he brings to film-making that his response to this sorry experience is to say simply, ‘People viewed me differently because of the colour of my skin and I can understand why.’

This is nonsense. Since 9/11 and even after 7/7 Muslims in the West have attempted to carry out many other terrorist attacks. Far from being threatened or made to feel uneasy, they have, and still do, openly express their hatred of us and our society.

Bob Silentio

Richard is right on the money.

Austin Barry

So "bus drivers" are found wanting? My BS detector is twitching like a diviner's rod, but I'd still like an opportunity of seeing the film. Perhaps they should splice in Adam Sandler as a whacky American tourist who gets caught up in the drama and whose quips act as an amusing counterpart to laconic English stoicism. Boffo box office guaranteed.

M Mcgregor

I would be surprised if Michael Prescott, or anyone else, is genuinely in any doubt as to why our Establishment and its media have created a "thicket of sensitivity" surrounding the Islamic bombing of our capital : why its "more powerful cultural citadels" avoid the topic, and why "press screenings in London have been thinly attended."

One is tempted to contrast the situation with that in the Second World War, when in the interests of security all German Nationals (potentially dangerous, or entirely innocent - including Jews) were quickly interned. The difference then was that the number of potential suspects was small, and the war was fought to keep Britain free of foreign domination; today such numbers are huge, and it is our own politicians who have imported them against the wishes of the nation - and are actively engaged in embedding them in every facet of our public life in order to destroy once and for all our identity (the codeword is 'diversity').

As for the failure of a single person with billions or even millions to help finance something patriotic : their money goes only to the established parties, who will see they get a good return for it one way or another.

Hal

I am not quite sure what the author's complaint is here. He says that there have been a number of good documentaries about 7/7. If one wants to understand what happened, that's a more useful place to look than fiction.

I also wonder if the lack of interest among film distributors isn't based on a mere reading of the market. I am American, and I can't recall any successful movies about 9/11. Please correct me if I am wrong. It may be too sad, disturbing and lacking in resolution to make for popular entertainment. There is no D-Day landing to make the audience leave feeling victorious.

I was impressed by Londoners going back to work the day after the bombings. I assume that British police and intelligence are doing a decent job of breaking up any terrorist rings. So where is the cowardice? What attitude is the author arguing for? Not more racism, surely.

Harry

The reason why no one wants to distribute this film is because it takes real events, doesn’t like what it sees in those real events and so instead decides to spin them in the most disingenuous way possible.

Why didn’t they make a film about four Muslims killing more than 50 and maiming plenty of others and the pressure the police felt under when the same thing nearly happened again two weeks later to the extent that they shot an innocent man?

Michael Prescott is prepared to say in his piece that an innocent man is shot down in the film. Why did he neglect to say that the man shot on the underground in the film is a Muslim? It goes right to the heart of the film’s specious argument that Muslims are somehow victimised in this country when the opposite is true.

In real life it wasn’t a Muslim who was shot on the underground but a non-Muslim, but that doesn’t suit the filmmaker’s agenda: we must present Muslims as victims because that’s our Gramscian code.

How do we do that in a storyline? Why, have the police shoot a Muslim. How’s that for a storyline? Never mind the thousands killed by Muslims on 9/11, the bodies killed by Muslims on 7/7 or even the 16 policemen killed in China the other day by Muslims (curious little pattern this, isn’t it?).

No. We’ll have Muslims as the victims, thank you. You can get away with trash like this if you have a state law forcing people to pay for it like the BBC and Channel 4 do, but you‘re surprised commercial distributors aren’t much interested?

All the surveys carried out suggest that of all European countries Britain has been the most accommodating and appeasing to Muslims with the result that - Britain commands the least respect of its Muslim population compared with other European countries. Why doesn’t the film deal with that?

And why on earth being on the train at King’s Cross is flagged up at the start of this feature as if it gives Mr Prescott some kind of special insight over and above everyone else, I don’t know. I wasn’t far behind you at Hampstead when my train stopped. So what?

Since when does someone’s proximity to a terrorist act suddenly give them more insight into terrorism than someone else.

You were in King’s Cross, for crying out loud. Up the road from the Farringdon Road Fiction Factory. There’s another bunch of people with the same delusions as you, but don’t think we’ve all fallen for it.

Peter Llewelan

Leaping to conclusions... we are in the age of false flag or faked terrorism to push and mold our behaviour. It is an old trick but the web is exposing the scam-- notwithstanding the ignorance shown here.

Helen

“Faked terrorism“? All those dead bodies in London, New York, Madrid and China are fake, are they?

The only thing that’s fake is this appeasement propaganda film’s storyline that turns a blind eye to all the corpses left behind by Muslim killers.

Why aren’t people “faking” terror incidents from Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists and so on? If it’s so easy to “fake” and apparently pull the wool over people’s eyes it should be easy enough to do.

Since you’re so concerned about “ignorance”, Peter Llewelan, you’ll be able to enlighten us all about the fake allegations of terror made against the Buddhist London suicide bombers etc. Or would I be right in thinking there are no such people?

Bob

Harry has cut right through the cant and bluster of this dishonest article. We can see through you, Prescott!

KB

I've no idea who Michael Prescott is or why he's peddling this revisionist bullsh*t. Could it be the presence of the Spectator's own Clemency Burton-Hill in a starring role?

If you want to read about a film that didn't even get as far as script approval, try Nick Cohen's recent article at http://standpointmag.co.uk/node/293.

Alex Pinsdorf

Finally: A film worthy of curiosity...Where can I get a copy?

alaa

fdsvfsdv

gyan

gggg

r.krshan

u.k has an anti-majority religion elite,and acutely suffers from the plague of sociolgy.

Bill Corr

Distribution difficulties experienced by a film in which British-born terrorists kill and maim their fellow-citizens in martyrdom operations [to quote the learned Yvonne Ridley]? Oh, that is SO easy to explain.

One of the functions expected of Muslims "communities" in Britain is to act as a dependable vote bank for the NuLab gang. The expected quid pro quo is that NuLab must ensure that they are not exposed to provocations such as this film, flawed as it evidently is.